Show the Working

End violence against women and girls (VAWG)

Green · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Green’s policy “End violence against women and girls (VAWG)” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Personal liberty & free speech — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

Decriminalising sex work directly removes state criminal sanctions over sex workers' bodies and choices, a clear gain for personal liberty. The misogyny hate crime element's effect on O10 is genuinely uncertain — no cited evidence resolves whether it materially restricts expression in practice.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether decriminalisation would be implemented in full or in a partial form that retains some associated criminalisation, and how broadly the misogyny hate crime would be applied to expressive conduct.

Our reading: The dominant O10 effect of this policy is the sex work decriminalisation element. Under current UK law, associated activities are criminalised, meaning sex workers face criminal sanctions over their bodily choices and economic conduct. Removing those sanctions is a direct improvement to O10's bodily autonomy and freedom-from-state-coercion indicators. The New Zealand comparator provides cited evidence that decriminalisation fires at scale — workers become more able to refuse clients, report violence, and exercise labour rights. The counterfactual is clear: absent the policy, the existing criminalised framework persists, with sex workers unable to safely organise or report crimes. The misogyny hate crime element creates a new criminal category. One might reason that hate crime laws by nature extend state liability into expressive conduct — but no cited evidence unit supports the specific claim that this proposal would chill or restrict freedom of expression in practice. The Law Commission evidence (E7, E8, E9) addresses victim outcomes and prosecution risk for serious crimes, not speech liberty. The absence of any cited evidence grounding a speech-restriction effect means the verdict cannot rest on it; it remains a genuine unknown rather than a demonstrated cost. The result is 'improves' at moderate magnitude, driven by the sex work decriminalisation. Confidence is moderate rather than high because the misogyny hate crime's liberty effects (positive or negative) remain evidentially unresolved, and the scale of any sex work decriminalisation depends on implementation detail not specified in the policy text.

Crime, justice & national security — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

Increased police capacity, full funding for domestic violence and rape crisis services, and decriminalising sex work all point toward real safety gains for victims — but the misogyny hate-crime element is genuinely contested, with the Law Commission and Rape Crisis warning it could make prosecutions harder. The net effect on safety is likely positive, driven mainly by the capacity and funding commitments rather than the hate-crime classification.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether making misogyny a hate crime improves or undermines prosecution of serious VAWG offences — the Law Commission and Rape Crisis England & Wales argue it could do the latter, while Fawcett Society and pilot evidence suggest the former.

Our reading: This policy bundle operates across three distinct mechanisms, each with different evidential weight for O5. The strongest case for improvement lies in the police capacity and funding commitments. The baseline is genuinely poor: a 5% conviction rate for domestic abuse, only 1 in 5 victims reporting, and patchy short-term local funding with persistent service gaps. Evidence shows that police training on coercive control correlates with a 41% increase in arrests, and tools like the DASH checklist with adequate capacity improve identification of high-risk perpetrators. Full, stable funding for DV and rape crisis services would directly address the documented problem of short-term funding cycles undermining provision. These are specific, deliverable mechanisms with cited evidence of effectiveness — they clear the mechanism-plausibility-plus-scale threshold. The misogyny hate-crime element is the most contested. The Law Commission (a government body) concluded it could be 'more harmful than helpful', citing difficulties of proof in court and risks to existing prosecutions. Rape Crisis England & Wales — an organisation whose core purpose is victim protection — also opposed it, warning of 'hierarchies of harm'. Against this, the Nottinghamshire pilot was reported positively, and the Fawcett Society continues to campaign for inclusion. This is a genuine expert disagreement, not manufactured balance: the two sides are split between improved recognition/signalling benefits and practical prosecution risks. Decriminalisation of sex work has a credible safety rationale for O5 — the current rate of violence against sex workers is severe, and New Zealand's experience post-decriminalisation shows improved reporting and safety. While much supporting evidence comes from advocacy sources (Decrim Now, ECP), the BMJ and human rights organisations also support this direction, lending it some independent weight. On balance, the capacity/funding and decriminalisation elements both point toward genuine O5 improvements at scale. The misogyny hate crime element introduces real uncertainty but is unlikely to dominate the net safety effect. The direction is improves, magnitude moderate, driven primarily by the capacity and funding commitments, with the hate-crime classification introducing meaningful but not overriding uncertainty.

Equal treatment & democratic rights — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

This policy would extend formal anti-discrimination protections to women through a misogyny hate crime designation, improve access to justice for domestic abuse victims, and remove criminal stigma from sex workers — all of which advance equal treatment. The main caveat is that credible expert bodies warn the misogyny hate crime element could backfire, making it harder rather than easier for some victims to get justice.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether making misogyny a hate crime improves or undermines criminal justice outcomes for VAWG victims is genuinely contested among credible expert bodies, and the effect on O9 hinges heavily on which side is right.

Our reading: This policy touches O9 across three distinct mechanisms. First, making misogyny a hate crime would extend the formal anti-discrimination framework to gender-based targeting — a direct O9 improvement in principle. However, the evidence is genuinely split: the Nottinghamshire pilot showed positive results, and the Fawcett Society argues it would recognise discrimination and power imbalances. Against this, the Law Commission — the independent legal authority — concluded it may be more harmful than helpful, with Rape Crisis sharing that concern on the specific grounds that the 'incident-based hostility' test fits poorly with the pattern-of-control nature of VAWG. No expert consensus exists. This element alone would warrant 'too-uncertain', but it is not the only mechanism. Second, committed and sustained funding for domestic violence and rape crisis services, alongside increased police capacity and a measurable national strategy, would materially improve access to justice and protection for a group with demonstrably poor outcomes: only 1 in 5 victims report to police, conviction rates sit around 5%, and the current patchwork of short-term, geographically uneven funding leaves over a third of local authorities without specialist provision. These are structural equal-treatment failures the policy directly addresses through committed instruments (full funding, measurable priority). The direction here is more clearly positive. Third, decriminalising sex work would remove criminal stigma from a group experiencing severe safety inequalities — 64% report violence at work, 12× murder risk — improving their practical ability to access police protection and health services. The New Zealand evidence supports a safety benefit. Overall, two of the three mechanisms point clearly toward improved equal treatment for women and sex workers; the misogyny hate crime element introduces genuine uncertainty. The net verdict is 'improves' at moderate magnitude, with low-to-moderate confidence on the misogyny element dragging overall confidence to moderate.